Recently, I saw the record of Professor Wang Dingding and Teacher Xue Zhaofeng scolding each other on Weibo, which is very interesting:
Wang Dingding criticized Xue Zhaofeng: Zhang Crazy ignorance Level did not graduate from the Department of Economics
Both gods were once professors at the Peking University Development Institute, but Teacher Xue Zhaofeng was very popular in sales because he got the start of the class, and for a time he gained fame and fortune (sales of 50 million, it is said that the platform and lecturers were divided into 55%) and appeared much more famous in the general population than Wang Dingding.
In view of this, some people boil down this controversy to the lightness of the literati: Xue Zhaofeng Wang Dingding's pen war essence: cultural people are famous and make money if they are not scolded by heaven
I think it is better not to discuss the problem from the perspective of people's hearts, otherwise it is difficult to jump out of the dispute between "gentleman" and "villain". Judging only from the records of the two people's battles compiled on Weibo, I still stand on the side of Teacher Xue Zhaofeng:
First, the central question of their debate is: Is there a "first-rate knowledge" that must be expressed in a "first-class" language that the public cannot understand? Personally, I have a negative attitude – even with such a professional knowledge of physics, it is still possible to make popular expressions (such as popular science works such as "A Brief History of Time"), let alone economics.
Second, the professional question of the debate is: can the demand curve be upward, and can the demand for different goods be spliced? I have no ability to judge, but can the last example given by Professor Wang Dingding be called the demand curve?
At least literal translation: the vertical coordinate is not a demand, but a social influence!
I feel that Professor Wang Dingding has fallen into the mentality of contemporary philosophers who talk to themselves and cannot extricate themselves, and all the "experts" who are good at saying "big words" and "false words" are worthy of vigilance!
Attached is a critique of the so-called contemporary "philosophers":
Why would a physicist provoke a group of humanists?
(Get a paid column, you have to open it in WeChat)